Why don't politicians actually do something about gun deaths?

[DC3Cowboy]

Why aren't we declaring America's inner cities disaster areas due to all the shootings and taking appropriate measures to put a halt to it? Why not flood those areas with police officers and even the National Guard if needed.Why not find out who the leaders are and slap them in prisons? Why not man the borders and stop the flow of the  illegal drugs these killers are selling?

And why not create an effective program to drastically lower suicide rates?

Why are our politicians not making this a national priority?

My guess is that they don't want to lose the issue. If inner city gun murders and gun suicides were drastically reduced, there would be no excuse to disarm the rest of us.

[me]

It would help if they'd admit the largest part of shootings and crime is in the gun free zones and places with the most strict gun laws.

[DC3Cowboy]

I really didn't see where you presented any facts. 

----v

Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.

The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.

[Locutus]

Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.

Do you have a link for some data to back up this claim besides just claiming that everyone, save you, is obtuse?  I'm not necessarily saying you're lying, I just haven't studied this kind of data in depth for awhile.

The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.

Addressing inner city gun violence/gangs/drugs/suicides are separate issues from the gun control issue that you're apparently here to discuss.  There are multiple causes and issues in play here from the local level all the way up to the federal government. 

[Y]

Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.

The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.

A singular 'fact', not multiple 'facts', is what you've presented. 

The rest is a Non-Sequitur...look it up. 

[Y]

Most Americans believe progressive liberal politicians are very concerned over gun deaths in America.

But they're not, and they make no real attempt to stop it.

Those aren't 'facts', those are opinions...and unsupported ones at that.

What we know about opinions is that unless they are supported by, and based on, evidence, facts, and logic, they are inherently worthless and fall under the old adage of "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and most of them stink!"

[Y]

...So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?

The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?

You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.

First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on.  That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.

Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question.  You've put the cart before the horse.

I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.

BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview.  ; )

[Exterminator]

Where is the like button?   

[Palehorse]

Where is the like button?   

You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.

First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on.  That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.

Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question.  You've put the cart before the horse.

I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.

BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview.  ; )

  (I found it eh?)

[DC3Cowboy]

You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.

First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on.  That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.

Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question.  You've put the cart before the horse.

I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.

BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview.  ; )

1) Thanks for the expected progressive liberal labeling. You did not disappoint.

2) We don't need to argue the Second Amendment. That's settled law and I accept it. You should too. See Heller and McDonald.

3) I gave the board hundreds of quotes from progressives that adequately demonstrate that gun confiscation is their goal.. That you progressives choose to ignore them is not my problem.

4) I sincerely hope you have the gumption to be honest in this debate. However, I doubt it. You've already demonstrated that.

In 2014, there were 33599 gun deaths. 21344 were suicides, which, at 64% is right at 2 out 3. Of the 12,225 remaining deaths, 10,945 were homicides, and right at 3 out of four were committed by blacks and Hispanics (72.4%). (All but a few homicides are committed by the same race as the victim.)

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[Y]

1) Thanks for the expected progressive liberal labeling. You did not disappoint.

2) We don't need to argue the Second Amendment. That's settled law and I accept it. You should too. See Heller and McDonald.

3) I gave the board hundreds of quotes from progressives that adequately demonstrate that gun confiscation is their goal.. That you progressives choose to ignore them is not my problem.

4) I sincerely hope you have the gumption to be honest in this debate. However, I doubt it. You've already demonstrated that.

In 2014, there were 33599 gun deaths. 21344 were suicides, which, at 64% is right at 2 out 3. Of the 12,225 remaining deaths, 10,945 were homicides, and right at 3 out of four were committed by blacks and Hispanics (72.4%). (All but a few homicides are committed by the same race as the victim.)

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

1. Don't whine, your words/positions here create the basis for you to fall under that label. Wear it proudly, and defend it, or stop acting like one if you don't like it.  ; )

2. Pfft!  You only accept it because that political decision - yes political, not one based on the Second Amendment had there been less 'conservative' ideologues on the Court - suits the fallacies to which you adhere.  ; )

3. Quotes, especially cherry-picked quotes without context, are inherently useless.  Do you have any examples of passed legislation which is directly responsible for confiscating all guns? 

Actually, you're playing a usual RW game of riding both sides of the fence.  You claim legislators are both lax and inactive when it come to this issue, THEN you claim they're trying to confiscate ALL you 'gun nutz' guns and trying to disarm everyone.

You can't have it both ways.  ; )

4. If you want to make the 'honesty' claim, then you have to face the fact that you threw away 'honesty' right out of the gate.

Now, that aside, what do you think are the logical conclusions to actually be drawn from those statistics?

[Y]

And here's something else that shows the inanity of your argument/position.

You give statistics, and make the claim, that under most situations the populace doesn't need to worry about 'gun violence'.

Then you make the claim (unsubstantiated by fact) the 'libs' are 'coming to get everyone's guns' which has at its basis the assumptions that living in America IS dangerous, AND that you NEED your guns for protection in this 'dangerous' America'

You DO see the absurdity of such an argument, don't you?

[Y]

I'm also STILL waiting for your Second Amendment argument.   

[duke jupiter]

Ain't google great?
 
Best regards,
Duke (where's me back-up) Jupiter

[DC3Cowboy]

1. Don't whine, your words/positions here create the basis for you to fall under that label. Wear it proudly, and defend it, or stop acting like one if you don't like it.  ; )

2. Pfft!  You only accept it because that political decision - yes political, not one based on the Second Amendment had there been less 'conservative' ideologues on the Court - suits the fallacies to which you adhere.  ; )

3. Quotes, especially cherry-picked quotes without context, are inherently useless.  Do you have any examples of passed legislation which is directly responsible for confiscating all guns? 

Actually, you're playing a usual RW game of riding both sides of the fence.  You claim legislators are both lax and inactive when it come to this issue, THEN you claim they're trying to confiscate ALL you 'gun nutz' guns and trying to disarm everyone.

You can't have it both ways.  ; )

4. If you want to make the 'honesty' claim, then you have to face the fact that you threw away 'honesty' right out of the gate.

Now, that aside, what do you think are the logical conclusions to actually be drawn from those statistics?

Typical progressive liberal response which is to divert, deflect, deny, and dismiss. That means you have absolutely no intention of actually addressing the topic, which is why our political classes (and you) refuse to address the real gun death problem, which is suicides and minority crime.